US Supreme Court ruled that could protect thousands of illegal immigrants from deportation
The US Supreme Court has given new hope to thousands of immigrants who have been in the country for a long time and tried to avoid deportation. The court ruled that the federal government had incorrectly notified immigrants who came to the United States to attend the deportation hearing. The publication told about this in more detail. The Guardian.
The SC overturned a lower court decision that prevented Agusto Niz-Chavez from complying with his request to cancel the deportation attempt based on the length of time he had lived in the United States. He and his family ended up in Michigan after illegally entering the United States in 2005.
The judges decided that federal immigration law requires the authorities to include all relevant details for notice at the hearing in one document, rather than submitting the information in multiple documents. While this is a technical issue, the decision could affect hundreds of thousands of immigration cases.
It's all the fault of the article a. Federal law states that an illegal immigrant can avoid deportation at the discretion of the attorney general if he has been in the United States for at least 10 years. The clock officially stops when it receives a "notice of attendance" (a notice to appear) with information about their hearing. It was the article that played a decisive role in this formulation.
“On the one hand, today's dispute may seem semantic, focused on one word, and a small one,” wrote Judge Neil Gorsuch in the court's conclusion. “But words are how the law limits power,” he is quoted as saying Fox News.
“In this case, the terms of the law ensure that when the federal government seeks a hearing against a person, it must at least provide him with a single and sufficiently comprehensive statement about the nature of the proceedings against him,” said Gorsuch.
The government argued that it was difficult to send all the information in one notice because the time or place of the hearing could change.
"But, as the court explained long ago," objected Gorsuch, "statements about administrative inconveniences and selfish rules never" justify a departure from the clear text of the law. "
Gorsuch has mercilessly criticized both the government bureaucracy and the burden it places on the general public. As an example, he described how asylum seekers are required to fill out a 12-page form with 14-page instructions, and that if they are mistaken, their application may be invalidated, they may even be charged with a crime.
"The world is flooded with forms, and departments rarely give people the same freedom of action in filling them out that the government is looking for today," he said.
Gorsuch was joined by three liberal judges, as well as conservative judges Clarence Thomas and Amy Connie Barrett.
Dissenting, Brett Cavanaugh, joined by John Roberts and Samuel Alito, said the ruling was "puzzling in terms of legal interpretation and common sense."
According to Steven Yale-Loer, professor of immigration law at Cornell University, this decision will cancel the long-term practice of the US Department of Homeland Security and in the short term will slow down the number of persons involved in immigration procedures.
- You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York
For many, Yale-Lawer added, "this gives them a second chance to try to prove they are entitled to cancellation of removal and other forms of assistance."
Under federal law, immigrants who are not legal permanent residents can apply to have their deportation canceled if they have lived in the United States for at least 10 years. The time elapsed to reach this threshold ends when the government initiates an immigration procedure with a notice of removal — a limitation known as the “time stop” rule.
In 2013, eight years after he entered the country, police stopped Niz Chávez because of a smashed taillight on his car. The federal government has sent notice of attendance at the deportation hearing.
After the Supreme Court in 2018 found in another case that a notice that did not specify the time and date of the hearing, Niz-Chavez cited the erroneous notice to argue that the time-stopping rule was not enforced in his case.
The Sixth US District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled against him in 2019, stating that the relevant information could be sent in more than one document. The Supreme Court overturned this decision.
Read also on ForumDaily:
stdClass Object ([term_id] => 12 [name] => In the US [taxonomy] => category [slug] => novosti-ssha)In the U.S.
stdClass Object ([term_id] => 407 [name] => court [taxonomy] => post_tag [slug] => sud)court
stdClass Object ([term_id] => 670 [name] => deportation [taxonomy] => post_tag [slug] => deportatsiya)deportation
stdClass Object ([term_id] => 747 [name] => immigrants [taxonomy] => post_tag [slug] => immigranty)immigrants
Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? Subscribe to our page in Facebook. Choose the "Display Priority" option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram - there are many interesting things. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily Woman и ForumDaily New York - there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information.